Discretionary release of third-party vehicles seized under strict liability without confiscation order.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P5 mahazar and P6 report after calling for the report relating the same .

ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriated writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to release the vehicles of the petitioner KL 10 BJ 3235 Tipper & KL 10 BF 0247 Earth Remover (JCB) to the petitioner forthwith without imposing any condition.

iii. to such other further reliefs which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper to allow in the facts and circumstances of the case urged at the petitioner at the time of hearing."(SIC)

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of an Earth Remover (JCB) with registration No.KL 10 BF 0247 and a hydraulic tipper bearing registration No.KL 10 BJ 3235. It is alleged that the vehicles were seized as per Ext.P5 on 08.03.2026 (counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date mentioned in Ext.P5 is actually 08.03.2026 and not 08.03.2023). According to the petitioner, he is only the registered owner of the vehicles and is not the owner of the property from where the vehicles were seized by the official respondents. The petitioner seeks interim custody of the vehicles.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no confiscation order is there.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property, from where the vehicles were seized. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicles.

6. This Court inVenugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KHC 1 ], held as follows:

“7. To understand the issues involved, first, we must look at the statutory provision. The statutory provision under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) reads thus:

“20. Confiscation of vessel, vehicle, etc. (1) After obtaining a report regarding seizure under Section 12 or Section 19 , the District Collectormay, if he thinks fit, order confiscation of the object seized: (emphasis supplied)

Provided that the owner or the person in custody of the same, shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a sum equal to one and a half times the value of the seized articles, as may be determined by the District Collector.

Provided further that the District Collector may take any action, in such manner as may be prescribed, to dispose the seized clay, sand, earth, brick, tile etc. and cause to remit the sums collected to the Fund.

(2) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be made by the District Collector unless the owner thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(3) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice given under sub-section (2), if the provisions have been substantially complied with.”

The above statutory provision alludes to the power of the District Collector. It provides discretion to the District Collector upon seizure of a vehicle, allowing them to either confiscate it or release it without confiscation. The Legislature's intention in using the word “may” would indicate that not every seizure of an article or vehicle must result in confiscation. We need to look into the word “may” and how we interpret the meaning of “may” is the question involved in this issue.

8. A paddy land or wetland, as the case may be, if it is included in the data bank, it is declared by the law that it cannot be converted or reclaimed. The owner of such land is legally barred under Section 3 of the